MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

Going Aristocratic: Penn Jillette, getting started

THINKFilm’s releasing Paul Provenza and Penn Jillette‘s The Aristocrats on July 29, and they’ve sent a letter from Jillette to journalists, who offers a few first notes. “A higher percentage of people who’ve seen our movie liked it than the percentage of people who liked Lord of the Rings. One reason is that Lord of the Rings sucks and our movie is good… Think of the most disgusting images you can. Think of the worst scatological and nonconsensual sex you can. Imagine children. Imagine young children. Imagine children that are related to each other. Children who are related to you. Imagine animals. Young endangered animals who are related to each other… Nope, you’re not even close. The movie has over 100 professionals. They are much more disgusting than you can ever be, that’s because they’re professionals… The taboo language is not even the main thrust; the main thrust is a movie with no nudity, no violence and no conflict… It’s very political because it’s not political at all… Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven. George W. Bush is president and there’s still no god. You failed boys. Someone should have told Mike that the bad guys are smarter than him and someone should have told Mel that the 3 Stooges were Jewish. Both those filthy rich losers wanted everyone to see their movies. Moore wanted the Republicans to be shocked by how bad they were and see the light shining out of his fat ass. Mel went for straight off the rack proselytizing. They both just got even richer.” Before attaching Frank Rich’s encomium from the NY Times, Jillette seems to shrug, “I’m already richer than I should be… I want to make people laugh and love life and love watching all my friends making each other laugh.” [The link above is from a South Park version of the joke, and it is very, very raw.]

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon